Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, could you elaborate on why you feel it's the “wrong agency.”
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was glad to see “sales and marketing plan resulting,” an indication that the firm is open to criticism. 8^)
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, the chief virtue of knockout format is that it gives each team direct influence over its ability to advance: win, and you advance. So, not surprisingly, I dislike the idea of using IMPs or victory points to decide the winner when one team has won both matches.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, let's hope they're not barking up the wrong tree.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg said, “I know many wish to be politically correct, but particularly for our game, more often than not, men's brains give them a biological advantage.

”https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html“

I'm not sure how that article is evidence for your statement, even what seems to be its most relevant finding to bridge, ”Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory." My thoughts:

1. Gender differences in mental abilities that were found by testing up to the (say) 99.99th percentile of the population might not extrapolate to world-class bridgeplayers or to others who also have spent many thousands of hours developing these abilities.

2. Short-term memory is significantly aided when the facts to be recalled can be encapsulated by concepts. It's illustrated by the difference between a grandmaster's ability to memorize a chess position that contains logical relationships versus one that's a random assortment of chessmen. A bridge deal involving strong players also has logic supporting and connecting many of the actions.

3. The article mentioned that females tend to use both hemispheres more than males do, which would seem to reinforce the ability to recall facts that are bound together by logic.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a few questions also.

DHL1: If the current website doesn't make it easy for the visitor to “connect with clubs and teachers,” shouldn't it?

DHL2: How many people reach the ACBL website “via Google or Facebook advertising”?

DHL3: What pages on the ACBL website tend to be visited by those people?

DHL4: What percentage of those people join the ACBL or play in clubs or tournaments?
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that it's a great letter.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Public Service Announcement:

The play can be added to a hand diagram as described at https://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/bridge-winners-site-feedback/suggested-help-qa-on-how-to-add-to-hand-diagram-code/.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After posting the discussion-starter, I realized that 4=4=3=2 should probably be ruled out owing to South's failure to raise spades. But I don't see 4=4 minors addressed.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think style could affect West's choice of lead, if for example this pair opens 1 with 4=4 in the minors.

But I should have asked what 1 shows. My intent wasn't to question South's judgement.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was 1 the systemic call with this shape?
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe the report is from a template whose signature hasn't been updated.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's a radical attempt to address the concern of losing to a team that goes on to win the event but sees one or more of its players withdraw due to winning a later event.

I'll use “1-Eventer” to denote a team having no members who will be playing in a later event, and “N-Eventer” for a team having at least one member who will be playing in a later event.

Let's say that of the teams qualifying for the knockout phase, exactly half are 1-Eventers and half are N-Eventers. Put each group in its own half of the draw, so that the only 1-Eventer that could lose to an N-Eventer would be a finalist.

If the number of 1-Eventers doesn't equal the number of N-Eventers, then put the highest-seeded teams of the larger group in their own half.

This is meant as a point of departure and not as a finished product.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Declarer could keep control against Kxx with North by leading a spade at Trick 2. If North rises and continues the pump, Declarer could afford to use the A to ruff the fourth round of clubs, by which time the diamonds would be established and trumps could then be drawn after entering Dummy with a heart.

If North ducks the first round of spades, then Declarer might have a guess later. For example, if North started with 3=3=2=5, then Declarer would need to run diamonds while retaining the A, to prevent North from ruffing high and cashing a club. But if North started with 3=2=5=3, then Declarer would need to draw South's remaining trump before cashing diamonds.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Team C: Loses to A by 1 and CB by 25
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom wrote, "I don't think that's the real objection. The real objection is this. Suppose I come second in the Mixed Trials. My team plays well and loses narrowly, but Smith and Jones (for the winners) are outstanding. Smith and Jones then go on to win the Senior trials, and withdraw from the Mixed World Championships. The other four Mixed winners, if I understand correctly, then add two players of their choice to augment their team, not necessarily strong ones who might have beaten us. That's just not fair.“ (Italics added.)

Assuming that this is referring to the USBC, the following is from the webpage referenced by Mark Leonard.

”6. If a player or players resign from a team that is qualified for any event at the 2019 World Championships, the team will remain eligible so long as it has at least 4 eligible players (2 men and 2 women for the Mixed Team). An eligible player must have played 50% of the boards in the selection event."
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's rumored that the USBF had an initial public offering. It didn't go that well. There was muttering about the organization's business model.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's amazing, especially since the three-hour time change added a degree of difficulty.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll play for the K and A to be split. After taking the Q at Trick 1, I'll lead a heart toward the jack. If it holds, I'll place the K with West and lead a diamond toward the queen, intending to duck a diamond if it holds. If instead East takes the K at Trick 2 and returns a club, I win the ace and lead toward the K, again intending to duck a diamond on the second round.
May 28
.

Bottom Home Top